HB 76: When does a cloning ban have something to do with abortion?

You'd be amazed what can be hidden deep in the bowels of proposed legislation.

Cloning prohibitions are trendy in state legislatures these days, much like anti-porn internet laws were several years ago.

There are two problems with this, only one of which is the rampant scientific illiteracy throughout our nation (including many of our legislators).

The biggest concern is the definitions.

Consider HB 76, which includes the following:

(g) An ‘organism’ is a living whole being, an individual, even if that organism is compromised of just one cell.

(h) A ‘human being’ is a living whole human organism, a human individual, from the beginning of the single-cell stage onward, produced by any means.

Notice what this language does: by law it defines human life as beginning at conception, which lays some important groundwork for later placing restrictions on abortion.

Please understand that I am not taking a position for or against abortion here; the issue is intellectual honesty.

Do you seriously believe that the bill's three sponsors and eighteen co-sponsors all missed this?

If not, you'll be interested in the complete list:

Sponsor:
Rep. Joseph Miro (R-22nd)

Additional Sponsors:
Sen. David McBride (D-13th)
Sen. Charles Copeland (D-4th)

Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Terry Spence (R-18th)
Rep. "Biff" Lee (R-40th)
Rep. Don Blakey (R-34th)
Rep. Joseph Booth (R-37th)
Rep. George Carey (R-36)
Rep. Benjamin Ewing (R-35th)
Rep. Gerald Hocker (R-38th)
Rep. Gregory Lavelle (R-11th)
Rep. Vincent Lofink (R-27th)
Rep. William Outten (R-30)
Rep. Daniel Short (R-39th)
Rep. Pamela Thornburg (R-29th)
Rep. Gerald Brady (D-4th)
Sen. George Bunting (D-20)
Sen. Colin Bonini (R-16th)
Sen. Catherine Cloutier (R-15th)
Sen. Gary Simpson (R-18th)
Sen. John Still (R-17th)

If there is anyone on this list known to favor legal abortion, you may want to send them this post.

As for those legislators who are opposed to legal abortion, that's also their right, but you might want to ask them if they intentionally signed on to support this "Trojan Horse" language.

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog